Search

Because the Nuremberg Chronicle is a text-image hybrid, it calls us to account for the interplay between the visible and the readable. We can think of the image as a [...]

The demand for quantitative assessment by external agencies and internal administrators can leave post-secondary instructors confused about the nature and purpose of learning outcomes and fearful that the demand is simply part of the increasing corporatization of the university system. This need not be the case. Writing learning outcomes has a number of benefits for course design that go beyond program assessment. This article clarifies some key aspects of the push towards using learning outcomes, and introduces a tripartite nomenclature for distinguishing between course outcomes, outputs, and objectives. It then outlines a process for instructors to use these three categories to develop and design courses that meet institutional assessment demands while also improving overall teaching effectiveness. (Contains 7 figures.)

This Forum emerges from a session initiated by the Professional Development Committee at the 2017 conference of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston. A panel of five Bible scholars, from both theological education and undergraduate contexts, provide brief descriptions and analyses of a specific course they have taught online. They describe creative assignments such as role play, online field trips, evaluating web sites, and staged debates. They analyze the opportunities for developing undergraduates' critical thinking skills as well as seminarians' formation for ministry. A comparison of online and face-to-face teaching contexts reveals shifts in our understanding of how learning happens and our own identities as teachers. The Forum concludes with questions from the floor, which turn the conversation toward institutional support for pedagogical and technological hurdles.

Hugh Heclo's recent book "On Thinking Institutionally" (Paradigm Publishers, 2008) analyzes changes that have taken place in the past half century in how North Americans tend to think and act in institutions. The volume is receiving particular attention as it can be applied to higher education and to religious denominations, and so deserves consideration by those who teach in theology and religious studies. At an October 2009 conference, The Wabash Center hosted a lively discussion of Heclo's volume among invited religion and theology scholars, which resulted in the present compilation of four short responses to the book. What was and is clear from these responses is that while Heclo has identified a crucial issue, his analysis and prescription leave important theoretical and practical questions untouched. Indeed part of the energy around the discussion of the book flowed from the ways in which his lack of attention to social class, gender, race, and age circumscribed his ability to robustly describe and diagnose the challenge that gave rise to his book. In order to orient readers to the volume and discussion of it, the "Conversation" begins with a descriptive review of the book.

This article begins by recognizing the increasing use of film in Religion, Theology, and Bible courses. It contends that in many Biblical Studies (and Religious Studies and Theology) courses, students are neither taught how to view films properly, nor how to place films into constructive dialogue with biblical texts. The article argues for a specific pedagogical approach to the use of film in which students learn how to view a film closely, in its entirety, on its own terms, and in its own voice. Viewing a film in this manner by attending to its aesthetic integrity is a prerequisite for constructing a fruitful dialogue between films and biblical texts. The essay concludes with three specific examples of what this approach might look like. Two responses follow the essay; Erin Runions of Pomona College considers two additional learning goals we might consider, and Richard Ascough of Queens University at Kingston helpfully distinguishes a range of possible pedagogical goals for introducing film into the Biblical Studies classroom.

This manuscript is an edited transcript of a panel discussion held at a Society of Biblical Literature conference (Boston, Massachusetts, November 22 to 24, 2008). Alice Hunt begins the discussion by summarizing the content and significance of a new book by Dale Martin, "The Pedagogy of The Bible" (Westminster John Knox Press, 2008) in which he argues that biblical studies in seminaries and divinity schools give too much emphasis to teaching the historical critical method and not enough to preparing students for ministry by teaching them to be self-reflective practitioners of the improvisational skills of interpreting scripture. Then a panel of bible scholars, including the author, conduct a wide-ranging discussion that raises questions about how biblical studies might better prepare students for ministry, as well as the proper role and appropriate pedagogies for introducing biblical studies in the undergraduate liberal arts curriculum.

A discussion about how instructors can host a hospitable online learning environment can address one of the fundamental philosophical and theological concerns frequently expressed about online learning--the loss of face-to-face interaction and, with it, the loss of community building (cf. Delamarter 2005, 138). This perceived link between physical presence and community creation, sometimes articulated, frequently assumed, often stands in the way of instructors, administrators, and even institutions fully embracing online learning. This article will argue that when one gives due attention to hospitality, the potential for building online community is greatly enhanced, and with it comes a more effective pedagogical strategy for deep learning. It will conclude with some general recommendations for employing hospitality for building online learning communities.

This is a film review of Benedetta (2021), directed by Paul Verhoeven. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chapter 16 verse 12 of the Book of Acts in the New Testament should retain the designation of Philippi as a city in the first district of Macedonia to preserve the factual accuracy of the account and to support Greco-Roman antiquity. Aside from this, there was a constant rivalry for civic titles which would justify claims of superiority. The disciple Luke made an error in his narration and should have noted the importance of civic pride in ancient cities.

Paul used business and government language in 2 Corinthians 8.1-15 to urge the Corinthians to fulfill their religious duty of collecting money to finance the church in Jerusalem. The language also appeared in Pauline texts 2 Corinthians 7.1, Galatians 3.3, Philippians 1.6 and Romans 15.28 as well as in 1 Peter 5.9 and Hebrews 8.5 and 9.6. The use of the language in the context of religious duty indicates that it is accepted as such during the Greco-Roman era.